Replies

To: fwdude

We want a man for Commander-in-Chief.

Technically that's what we have presently.

7 posted on 05/30/2011 4:26:32 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)

To: EGPWS

MINO....imo.

26 posted on 05/30/2011 5:11:00 PM PDT by Osage Orange (The MSM is an enemy of the United States of America)

To: EGPWS

Technically that's what we have presently.

Technically yes; testically, no.

28 posted on 05/30/2011 5:15:53 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)

To: EGPWS

“Technically that’s what we have presently.”

Technically, you’re right. Practically...not so sure.

34 posted on 05/30/2011 5:40:14 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty

To: fwdude; EGPWS

We want a man for Commander-in-Chief.

Technically that's what we have presently.

I'll see you a beer and raise you a pinkie.

38 posted on 05/30/2011 5:47:14 PM PDT by taraytarah

To: EGPWS

"We want a man for Commander-in-Chief."
Technically that's what we have presently.

Technically, yes. Practically, no way.

61 posted on 05/30/2011 9:42:49 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)

To: EGPWS; fwdude

We want a man for Commander-in-Chief.

Technically that's what we have presently.

Further technical question: If a guy is anatomically male but is a catamitic "bottom" and former chicken, then is he technically "a man"?

63 posted on 05/30/2011 11:06:10 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794